Reality check for the pure bred liberals. As a vet!
There’s no such thing as bulletproof. Not on a person.
Not today. Period. End of discussion.
I’m tired of people pointing out bulletproof this or that. Bull fucking shite. And I have the scars to prove it. Through the vest, through the chest, out the side, through the arm, through the shoulder, out the other side of my arm.
It isn’t even worth discussing.
It’s a dumb idea all around. You create self-described super cops who don’t give a dam because they think they’re invincible, and they become more aggressive for the same reasoning.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "99% of the time it's justifiable"
yes, that's a real case where police shot someone who had earphones and couldn't hear them
Damn right. It’s actually why I don’t wear double headphones when I walk/jog.
But I’m more accommodating and understanding than average in terms of law and law enforcement.
but if he's fleeing he's definitely not a threat to you
Partly. They’re a volatile potential threat to everyone else.
But if they have a loaded weapon they’re also a threat to you. You don’t think people shoot behind them?
Over the shoulder?
too many cases where the use of force went above and beyond not only what was necessary, but also what was reasonable and justifiable.
I won’t go so far as unreasonable, in my beliefs, but definitely agree there’s more force than necessary.
I’ve always agreed with that aspect.
What about your claim that 99% are justified?
Also a figure of speech, but belief in what is justification varies.
Disobeying a lawful order", though their orders are not always lawful.
"Running away", does present an immediate danger to the cop.
"Being stupid", which is not illegal.
•granted. •could be, see above
•unfortunately correct.
Let’s look at the pocket case.
Licence… etc
I have a gun
Don’t reach for it
Keeps reaching claiming I’m not
Sad situation? Yes. Unfathomable murder? Not at all.
The proper response is to stay still as an officer panics. Hell, for the safety of the officer and the driver!; stay still. Don’t move.
The proper action in such a case is to not reach,
Hands on the wheel
‘Officer I have a sidearm, would you feel safest if I were to step out so you could disarm me?’
That has been my exact interaction.
How about the taser case? Driver is told to get out. Driver turns on car and floors it.
Officer pulls the wrong pistol grip device and shoots the man accidentally.
While the media makes a big deal out of it, they ignore the officer that was literally nearly run over. They ignore that a man so desperate to not comply is operating a deadly device.
If he swung the wheel right he would have clipped, and possibly killed two officers.
Taylor? A know person previously harbouring a fugitive, an armed individual at the door, and a police announcement of who they were?
For all the outrage of late, I am only aware of one that is actually abusive: Floyd.
And even there, where the police response is undeniably incorrect, it’s not racist white cop kills innocent black man !
It’s bad cop killed known user of mind/mood altering drugs… who was resisting even if it was not intentional.
And that cop was sentenced. For a count harsher than what actually happened.
I’ve never denied the real, legitimate, problems. A handful of bad cops. The protection racket of shielding them.
And I’ve been quite vocal in the need to remove deadly weapons from standard policing and move to less deadly methods.
But I will not lie and say this is all without cause, as the media does.
None of these are innocent people interacting with evil blue dogs.
The solution is to acknowledge the reality. All aspects. Police do not need self reloading handguns, let alone rifles, for a traffic stop.
Nor should deadly force be the first act of self protection.
AND
The public and the media need to stop pretend these are innocent victims of law enforcement.
The problem isn’t policing and the solution isn’t defunding.
The problem is excessive use of unequal force for the situation and the protection of the fools who go to such an extreme.
So any attempt to solve the problem of people getting shot by cops is not good enough if there is still law enforcement?
Sounds like a good idea to me.
Though this wasn’t invented by some pare!
Separate ID carry has been used since WWII and comes from the US military. But acknowledging that isn’t good for the anti law slant is it. See, the neck pouch, worn around the neck under the uniform when not in vehicle, was specifically designed to wrap over the shield bar of a vehicle which could be turned towards either window with a single movement of a single arm.
A variation has been used in public transportation far before this mother “invented” it. Cab drivers, bus drivers, etc.
I place one on the visor of each vehicle I operate. Won hand reaching up shows the licence to the officer.
Can’t you ever be happy someone is trying? Or are you just that against the idea of someone enforcing laws as a whole?
One that the Capital surveillance tapes have been released: we see publicly what many have said all along. Nope, no big insurrection.
The vast majority, the 99%, the all but a handful… just a peaceful protest.
They were allowed in. And then left with no violence.
That a dozen people got together and attempted to penetrate the inner building has no relation to the majority who walked in, again with full permission to do so. Hang out, chanted, and then left when told to.
Seeing how this wasn’t the fictional insurrectionist riot the primary media parented it to be: there’s no reason to be concerned from a corporate stand point.
How would removing legal recognition of marriage prevent laypeople from getting married? No, seriously, how?
It wouldn’t!
But
Do you really see non-religious people choosing to go to a church for a second licence/certification that has no legal weight?
Also, what did you say their position was?
I didn’t. As they don’t have one. It actually mirrors us here. People like you who want the term for it’s modern use vs people like me who despise the continued use in law due to it’s source. It’s original use.
Most Republicans and some Democrats use the religious aspect of just about every term in debate
Ideally we remove all of them. One by one. Flush religion from the law.
Well, there is none, so problem solved.
Tell that to them. They claim there is.
I simply state that they are not wrong, if not right either.
don’t see
That’s unfortunate. Because as long as we allow items of religious significance, be it words, be it items, etc, to infect our government… we remain infected. Polluted. Dirty.
On top of that, the way the court weaseled out of declaring the anti-abortion law unconstitutional
Actually, I’m not so sure the action (of SCOTUS) is what you (plural) perceive it to be.
Looks to me, as a possibility, that rather than address a law alone without case, they opted to wait till there was a case with a challenge as opposed as a case to challenge.
It’s not a unique action in history.
Otherwise, you’re probably right.
Doesn’t change the absolute fact that we have yet another religious piece of crap smeared all over our law books.
No, it’s when they accepted Christian marriage, not marriage, period.
Well, prior to that they didn’t have marriage. They had multiple other similar terms for similar recognition. The Christians just changed the term and applied all their restrictions to what use to be the legal method of partnering in law.
Ah, I did miss something, though not exactly what you point out:
Federal law overrules state law.
So let’s try this again:
*In order to conform with the Constitutional requirements of the separation of religion from State recognition:
Upon passage as of ##/##/#### the term “marriage” shal no longer be recognised as a legal partnership. All rights of the civil domestic partnership currently afforded to the term marriage are fully and permanently rescinded.
The practice of legal domestic partnering shall hence forth be referred to as a Civil Union and all rights previously afforded to the institution of marriage shall apply. Application is without restriction to two humans regardless of similarity or difference.
Be it confirmed, all states will transfer the practice of marriage verification to the practice of civil union verification.
All states issuing marriage licensing shall be required to issue a civil union licence with the federal registers office at the request of the married party. I here will be no time limitation on the married party’s right to federal filing and the state much submit such a filing within 10 days of request.*
First of all, this directly conflicts with your earlier issue regarding bathroom peep cameras. If she shouldn’t care if someone sees what’s under her dress, she should care if there’s a bathroom peep cam, either.
The difference is adults vs the vulnerable minors. That’s all I was concerned with up top.
But the chance of someone getting away with holding a camera in an open layout non-gendered room… slim.
I’d like to see evidence of that,
Minor correction, you won’t have people getting away with it.
As a disabled person, I kinda need some accommodations, so I’m gonna take a hard pass on that.
My apologies, that’s not what I meant. My mum is as well.
The projection of rage is the bending over backwards to adapt to every minor difference of opinion.
My experience with Asia is limited to Japan
Japan’s an interesting country. Kind of like the opposite of California in social practice.
But they first implemented the women’s urinal: https://www.japan-talk.com/jt/new/7-Japanese-toilet-oddities
I’m over generalising but…
In the cities Japan tends to be more conservative in social action. It’s the outskirts, and the country, that you start to find the more “liberal” attitudes. Especially south. Onsen, toilet, shower, etc… the gender mixing is more common.
Your initial thought is correct though. It’s culture. And I’d rather change the culture. If everyone just went in, did, then left… regardless of any differences?
That’s the goal I think the move should be towards.
But again my concern for, situations, stems from security.
Due to privacy there is little to no security for the more vulnerable members of society in these “private” areas.
When you simply open the door to everyone, sure you increase opportunity, but you also increase the population. You’re far less likely to have someone get away with misuse of a camera, a hand, or a finger.
You quickly create a security net. Again, strength in numbers.
Do you really think this debate is at an end?
That republicans are not capable with a super majority across all three levels of government, of undoing this?
A single state just stripped away the right to remove unwanted parasitic tumours from women’s wombs.
Though the law will eventually, in all realistic likelihood, be struck down eventually, the damage until then is untold horror.
Do you really believe “marriage” isn’t in their minds as well?!!?
No, it is not. That debate isn’t restricted to gay marriage. It’s also about stuff like adultery, divorce, gay adoption, sex outside of marriage, and a whole bunch of other things.
Then again, none of that would be taking place in married couples when lay people aren’t getting married anymore. So it totally destroys their argument.
To be frank, I really don’t give a damn
Considering they are the largest secular rights group in the country and one of the largest in the world, they hold weight in discussion about religion.
I’m sorry, but I’m afraid that I don’t see that as having any actual benefits at all.
The primary benefit is one more step away from archaic cults having legal standing. It’s one more thing they can use in debate. Like it or not, most Republicans, and some Democrats, use the religious aspect of marriage in debate.
Strip it away and they can’t debate marriage if the law in from of them doesn’t have the term.
Wise practice is to remove as much religious claim as possible from law.
inserting a new term that is identical seems pointless to me
That’s just it. The term domestic partnership as been state level law since the late 1700s. The idea of a civil union first crept up in the mid 1800s but is today federally recognised.
We’re not inserting anything new. Just removing something that shouldn’t be there in the first place.
I follow your idea on the term. And it’s historical use. But can you understand my reasoning based on the origin of the term?
Would this country not be best off removing anything of religious significance from law when the alternate terminology is readily accepted in legislation and judicial practice?
As I posted further down below:
Marriage-merge-meage-mrgee
matrim
מאר
उद्वाह
It’s historical source comes from a religious act. That early religion dictated law is coincidental in the term’s meaning and use.
The actual uptick in general use comes following the Roman Empire turning Christian.
Prior to that they had a separate legally recognised joining rite. Which was the only recognition to the empire. Non-Roman religious beliefs like marriage were not recognised. An aid to a Prefect, a Tally, or a Censor would be called to record a separate joining beyond whatever Christians or Jews etc did.
The interesting thing here is Roman, and Greek, societies were generally very accepting of pan-sexuality. That was lost when Rome accepted marriage and de-legalised the standard joining.
Uh, yes there is
What? Where? “ During the time” is past. Today? Point out a single difference other than on is tainted by 3000 years of nonsense and one has a base in law.
You’ve left open a massive loophole there: states can still issue marriage licenses, and there is no requirement that states must provide civil unions the same rights and benefits as marriages.
“ All states shall be required to file a civil domestic partnership contract with the federal registers office if they continue to issue marriage licensing.”
Nope!
No loophole. i accounted for states like Utah etc. lol.
On the post: Minnesota Dept. Of Public Safety Now Handing Out License/Insurance Carriers In Hopes Of Keeping Cops From Killing More Drivers
Re: Re: DPS should work on better armor
Reality check for the pure bred liberals. As a vet!
There’s no such thing as bulletproof. Not on a person.
Not today. Period. End of discussion.
I’m tired of people pointing out bulletproof this or that. Bull fucking shite. And I have the scars to prove it. Through the vest, through the chest, out the side, through the arm, through the shoulder, out the other side of my arm.
It isn’t even worth discussing.
It’s a dumb idea all around. You create self-described super cops who don’t give a dam because they think they’re invincible, and they become more aggressive for the same reasoning.
Just an fyi.
On the post: Minnesota Dept. Of Public Safety Now Handing Out License/Insurance Carriers In Hopes Of Keeping Cops From Killing More Drivers
Re: Re: They should have complied
Do you deny the video evidence? Looks a bit over the top to me for a covid quarantine violation.
On the post: Body Cam Video Shows Cop Killing A Harmless Dog Within 15 Seconds Of Arriving At The Scene
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "99% of the time it's justifiable"
Damn right. It’s actually why I don’t wear double headphones when I walk/jog.
But I’m more accommodating and understanding than average in terms of law and law enforcement.
Partly. They’re a volatile potential threat to everyone else.
But if they have a loaded weapon they’re also a threat to you. You don’t think people shoot behind them?
Over the shoulder?
I won’t go so far as unreasonable, in my beliefs, but definitely agree there’s more force than necessary.
I’ve always agreed with that aspect.
Also a figure of speech, but belief in what is justification varies.
•granted. •could be, see above
•unfortunately correct.
Let’s look at the pocket case.
Licence… etc
I have a gun
Don’t reach for it
Keeps reaching claiming I’m not
Sad situation? Yes. Unfathomable murder? Not at all.
The proper response is to stay still as an officer panics. Hell, for the safety of the officer and the driver!; stay still. Don’t move.
The proper action in such a case is to not reach,
Hands on the wheel
‘Officer I have a sidearm, would you feel safest if I were to step out so you could disarm me?’
That has been my exact interaction.
How about the taser case? Driver is told to get out. Driver turns on car and floors it.
Officer pulls the wrong pistol grip device and shoots the man accidentally.
While the media makes a big deal out of it, they ignore the officer that was literally nearly run over. They ignore that a man so desperate to not comply is operating a deadly device.
If he swung the wheel right he would have clipped, and possibly killed two officers.
Taylor? A know person previously harbouring a fugitive, an armed individual at the door, and a police announcement of who they were?
For all the outrage of late, I am only aware of one that is actually abusive: Floyd.
And even there, where the police response is undeniably incorrect, it’s not racist white cop kills innocent black man !
It’s bad cop killed known user of mind/mood altering drugs… who was resisting even if it was not intentional.
And that cop was sentenced. For a count harsher than what actually happened.
I’ve never denied the real, legitimate, problems. A handful of bad cops. The protection racket of shielding them.
And I’ve been quite vocal in the need to remove deadly weapons from standard policing and move to less deadly methods.
But I will not lie and say this is all without cause, as the media does.
None of these are innocent people interacting with evil blue dogs.
The solution is to acknowledge the reality. All aspects. Police do not need self reloading handguns, let alone rifles, for a traffic stop.
Nor should deadly force be the first act of self protection.
AND
The public and the media need to stop pretend these are innocent victims of law enforcement.
The problem isn’t policing and the solution isn’t defunding.
The problem is excessive use of unequal force for the situation and the protection of the fools who go to such an extreme.
On the post: Minnesota Dept. Of Public Safety Now Handing Out License/Insurance Carriers In Hopes Of Keeping Cops From Killing More Drivers
Re: From Aus
No, they just curb stomp you in Australia.
Because knocking the shite out of someone stops Covid right?
https://mobile.twitter.com/CryptoFallen/status/1305068861490774016
On the post: New Report On Predictive Policing Shows How New Tech Is Giving Us Little More Than The Same Old Racism
Well….maybe?
Guess they start young?
🤦♂️
On the post: Minnesota Dept. Of Public Safety Now Handing Out License/Insurance Carriers In Hopes Of Keeping Cops From Killing More Drivers
You just can’t do right…
So any attempt to solve the problem of people getting shot by cops is not good enough if there is still law enforcement?
Sounds like a good idea to me.
Though this wasn’t invented by some pare!
Separate ID carry has been used since WWII and comes from the US military. But acknowledging that isn’t good for the anti law slant is it. See, the neck pouch, worn around the neck under the uniform when not in vehicle, was specifically designed to wrap over the shield bar of a vehicle which could be turned towards either window with a single movement of a single arm.
A variation has been used in public transportation far before this mother “invented” it. Cab drivers, bus drivers, etc.
I place one on the visor of each vehicle I operate. Won hand reaching up shows the licence to the officer.
Can’t you ever be happy someone is trying? Or are you just that against the idea of someone enforcing laws as a whole?
On the post: AT&T Quickly Ditches Pledge Not To Fund Congressional Insurrectionists
The facts came out
One that the Capital surveillance tapes have been released: we see publicly what many have said all along. Nope, no big insurrection.
The vast majority, the 99%, the all but a handful… just a peaceful protest.
They were allowed in. And then left with no violence.
That a dozen people got together and attempted to penetrate the inner building has no relation to the majority who walked in, again with full permission to do so. Hang out, chanted, and then left when told to.
Seeing how this wasn’t the fictional insurrectionist riot the primary media parented it to be: there’s no reason to be concerned from a corporate stand point.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It wouldn’t!
But
Do you really see non-religious people choosing to go to a church for a second licence/certification that has no legal weight?
I didn’t. As they don’t have one. It actually mirrors us here. People like you who want the term for it’s modern use vs people like me who despise the continued use in law due to it’s source. It’s original use.
Ideally we remove all of them. One by one. Flush religion from the law.
Tell that to them. They claim there is.
I simply state that they are not wrong, if not right either.
That’s unfortunate. Because as long as we allow items of religious significance, be it words, be it items, etc, to infect our government… we remain infected. Polluted. Dirty.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, I’m not so sure the action (of SCOTUS) is what you (plural) perceive it to be.
Looks to me, as a possibility, that rather than address a law alone without case, they opted to wait till there was a case with a challenge as opposed as a case to challenge.
It’s not a unique action in history.
Otherwise, you’re probably right.
Doesn’t change the absolute fact that we have yet another religious piece of crap smeared all over our law books.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, prior to that they didn’t have marriage. They had multiple other similar terms for similar recognition. The Christians just changed the term and applied all their restrictions to what use to be the legal method of partnering in law.
Ah, I did miss something, though not exactly what you point out:
Federal law overrules state law.
So let’s try this again:
*In order to conform with the Constitutional requirements of the separation of religion from State recognition:
Upon passage as of ##/##/#### the term “marriage” shal no longer be recognised as a legal partnership. All rights of the civil domestic partnership currently afforded to the term marriage are fully and permanently rescinded.
The practice of legal domestic partnering shall hence forth be referred to as a Civil Union and all rights previously afforded to the institution of marriage shall apply. Application is without restriction to two humans regardless of similarity or difference.
Be it confirmed, all states will transfer the practice of marriage verification to the practice of civil union verification.
All states issuing marriage licensing shall be required to issue a civil union licence with the federal registers office at the request of the married party. I here will be no time limitation on the married party’s right to federal filing and the state much submit such a filing within 10 days of request.*
Better?
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The difference is adults vs the vulnerable minors. That’s all I was concerned with up top.
But the chance of someone getting away with holding a camera in an open layout non-gendered room… slim.
Minor correction, you won’t have people getting away with it.
My apologies, that’s not what I meant. My mum is as well.
The projection of rage is the bending over backwards to adapt to every minor difference of opinion.
Japan’s an interesting country. Kind of like the opposite of California in social practice.
But they first implemented the women’s urinal:
https://www.japan-talk.com/jt/new/7-Japanese-toilet-oddities
I’m over generalising but…
In the cities Japan tends to be more conservative in social action. It’s the outskirts, and the country, that you start to find the more “liberal” attitudes. Especially south. Onsen, toilet, shower, etc… the gender mixing is more common.
Your initial thought is correct though. It’s culture. And I’d rather change the culture. If everyone just went in, did, then left… regardless of any differences?
That’s the goal I think the move should be towards.
But again my concern for, situations, stems from security.
Due to privacy there is little to no security for the more vulnerable members of society in these “private” areas.
When you simply open the door to everyone, sure you increase opportunity, but you also increase the population. You’re far less likely to have someone get away with misuse of a camera, a hand, or a finger.
You quickly create a security net. Again, strength in numbers.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you really think this debate is at an end?
That republicans are not capable with a super majority across all three levels of government, of undoing this?
A single state just stripped away the right to remove unwanted parasitic tumours from women’s wombs.
Though the law will eventually, in all realistic likelihood, be struck down eventually, the damage until then is untold horror.
Do you really believe “marriage” isn’t in their minds as well?!!?
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then again, none of that would be taking place in married couples when lay people aren’t getting married anymore. So it totally destroys their argument.
Considering they are the largest secular rights group in the country and one of the largest in the world, they hold weight in discussion about religion.
The primary benefit is one more step away from archaic cults having legal standing. It’s one more thing they can use in debate. Like it or not, most Republicans, and some Democrats, use the religious aspect of marriage in debate.
Strip it away and they can’t debate marriage if the law in from of them doesn’t have the term.
Wise practice is to remove as much religious claim as possible from law.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That’s just it. The term domestic partnership as been state level law since the late 1700s. The idea of a civil union first crept up in the mid 1800s but is today federally recognised.
We’re not inserting anything new. Just removing something that shouldn’t be there in the first place.
I follow your idea on the term. And it’s historical use. But can you understand my reasoning based on the origin of the term?
Would this country not be best off removing anything of religious significance from law when the alternate terminology is readily accepted in legislation and judicial practice?
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As I posted further down below:
Marriage-merge-meage-mrgee
matrim
מאר
उद्वाह
It’s historical source comes from a religious act. That early religion dictated law is coincidental in the term’s meaning and use.
The actual uptick in general use comes following the Roman Empire turning Christian.
Prior to that they had a separate legally recognised joining rite. Which was the only recognition to the empire. Non-Roman religious beliefs like marriage were not recognised. An aid to a Prefect, a Tally, or a Censor would be called to record a separate joining beyond whatever Christians or Jews etc did.
The interesting thing here is Roman, and Greek, societies were generally very accepting of pan-sexuality. That was lost when Rome accepted marriage and de-legalised the standard joining.
What? Where? “ During the time” is past. Today? Point out a single difference other than on is tainted by 3000 years of nonsense and one has a base in law.
“ All states shall be required to file a civil domestic partnership contract with the federal registers office if they continue to issue marriage licensing.”
Nope!
No loophole. i accounted for states like Utah etc. lol.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You have debated me enough to know language is not the sword to die on with me
Marriage-merge-meage-mrgee-
matrim
מאר
उद्वाह
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
kan du forstå mig? hvis jeg valgte en tidlig variant af mit genetiske sprog, ville du ikke forstå.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Either feel free to point to anything post 1950 where there’s a difference.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am.
Feel free to point out a legal difference in the US law. I’m not holding my breath.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Here’s a quickie for you:
https://www.liquisearch.com/marriage/etymology
That is because I hold the original origin in higher regard than modern use or misuse.
That the term marriage slipped into legal use has more to do with religious influence in government than it does the meaning of the word changing.
Again, be it granted, I seek to purge all religion from law.
Next >>